If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   National Review slams RNC autopsy for failing to identify "the source of the GOP's recent electoral woes"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 247
    More: Amusing, National Review, RNC, GOP  
•       •       •

3269 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 10:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 03:55:22 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.

You directly said  to me that you knew nothing about the issue, cared nothing about the issue and are not concerned about the issue.


No, I said I don't know or care what single issue would bring a en masse swell of support for the GOP and that thinking about that is irrelevant to what we were discussing.  Here I'll quote it for you:

Philip Francis Queeg: What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?

Don't know, don't care, en masse changes are not even relevant. It would only come into play in a swing state where small numbers would matter.
 
2013-03-19 04:00:04 PM

manimal2878: monoski: As long as he has his guns he is not worried about policies that remove wage protection to pay tax cuts for the top tier, nor environmental laws that allow for his drinking water to catch fire while removing any recourse against the drilling companies and last but not least who needs health insurance if you got a gun. Amiright?

No you are completely incorrect asshole.  Learn to read.


Your sarcasm meter appears to be broken
 
2013-03-19 04:03:20 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.

You directly said  to me that you knew nothing about the issue, cared nothing about the issue and are not concerned about the issue.

No, I said I don't know or care what single issue would bring a en masse swell of support for the GOP and that thinking about that is irrelevant to what we were discussing.  Here I'll quote it for you:

Philip Francis Queeg: What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?

Don't know, don't care, en masse changes are not even relevant. It would only come into play in a swing state where small numbers would matter.


So is it only on gun issues that Democrats should not take a position that could cause small numbers of voters in swing states to vote against them? Or is it a more general rule that they should agree with the Republicans on all things to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence?
 
2013-03-19 04:07:14 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So is it only on gun issues that Democrats should not take a position that could cause small numbers of voters in swing states to vote against them?

This.

Or is it a more general rule that they should agree with the Republicans on all things to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence? Not This.
 
2013-03-19 04:11:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So is it only on gun issues that Democrats should not take a position that could cause small numbers of voters in swing states to vote against them? Or is it a more general rule that they should agree with the Republicans on all things to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence?


Let me clarify, I'm am not saying democrats need to do anything.   I was just pointing out how the gun issue could be the one thing that helps the GOP avoid the deathblow for another election cycle.
 
2013-03-19 04:14:33 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: So is it only on gun issues that Democrats should not take a position that could cause small numbers of voters in swing states to vote against them? Or is it a more general rule that they should agree with the Republicans on all things to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence?

Let me clarify, I'm am not saying democrats need to do anything.   I was just pointing out how the gun issue could be the one thing that helps the GOP avoid the deathblow for another election cycle.


So what makes guns unique amongst all issues? Why on that one issue, and that one issue alone must the Democrats ignore all popular opinion and refuse to draw any significant difference between their policy and the Republicans?
 
2013-03-19 04:18:23 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So what makes guns unique amongst all issues? Why on that one issue, and that one issue alone must the Democrats ignore all popular opinion and refuse to draw any significant difference between their policy and the Republicans?


First what is their position?
 
2013-03-19 04:22:25 PM
Philip Francis Queeg:
So what makes guns unique amongst all issues? Why on that one issue, and that one issue alone must the Democrats ignore all popular opinion and refuse to draw any significant difference between their policy and the Republicans?

If the position is to ban guns or limit magazines to an arbitrary number less than design standard then it's because it's not logical nor will it be effective.

If the position is to close loopholes and improve background checks, then, hell yes they need to distinguish themselves from the republicans.
 
2013-03-19 04:27:11 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg:
So what makes guns unique amongst all issues? Why on that one issue, and that one issue alone must the Democrats ignore all popular opinion and refuse to draw any significant difference between their policy and the Republicans?

If the position is to ban guns or limit magazines to an arbitrary number less than design standard then it's because it's not logical nor will it be effective.

If the position is to close loopholes and improve background checks, then, hell yes they need to distinguish themselves from the republicans.


But why are guns unique amongst all issues in that taking a position that you believe to be illogical and inefffective will spell doom at the ballot box for Democrats?
 
2013-03-19 04:30:41 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: But why are guns unique amongst all issues in that taking a position that you believe to be illogical and inefffective will spell doom at the ballot box for Democrats?


Oh ok, I see what you are saying.  Because there is such a thing as liberal gun owners, there is not really such a thing as a liberal that also hates gay people, or a liberal that hates black people, or a liberal that hates the poor, etc.
 
2013-03-19 04:33:52 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But why are guns unique amongst all issues in that taking a position that you believe to be illogical and inefffective will spell doom at the ballot box for Democrats?

Oh ok, I see what you are saying.  Because there is such a thing as liberal gun owners, there is not really such a thing as a liberal that also hates gay people, or a liberal that hates black people, or a liberal that hates the poor, etc.


And there are no conservatives who favor increased gun controls in your opinion? There are no liberals who would angered if the Democrats refused to make gun violence an issue?
 
2013-03-19 04:44:42 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: And there are no conservatives who favor increased gun controls in your opinion? There are no liberals who would angered if the Democrats refused to make gun violence an issue?


Sure there are conservatives that favor increased gun control and  sure there are liberals that would be mad if the democrats didn't make it an issue, but neither is relevant.  They are not relevant because they would have no personal stake in the outcome only ideological investment, either way they don't gain or lose anything personally, and would not be mobilized enough to let it change their voting behavior the way that somebody that would personally be affected would be.
 
2013-03-19 04:50:14 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: And there are no conservatives who favor increased gun controls in your opinion? There are no liberals who would angered if the Democrats refused to make gun violence an issue?

Sure there are conservatives that favor increased gun control and  sure there are liberals that would be mad if the democrats didn't make it an issue, but neither is relevant.  They are not relevant because they would have no personal stake in the outcome only ideological investment, either way they don't gain or lose anything personally, and would not be mobilized enough to let it change their voting behavior the way that somebody that would personally be affected would be.


I think you are completely wrong when you think that people in favor of gun control and who are concerned about gun violence have no personal stake in the issue, and that they cannot be mobilized by it. Many of those people feel very strongly that they have a personal stake in the form of the lives and safety of their loved ones.

If you theory was abortion would never mobilize men to political action, nor homosexual rights motivate heterosexual. Yet both those issue have been amongst the most effective at mobilizing groups that appear to have no direct stake in the issue.
 
2013-03-19 04:58:51 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I think you are completely wrong when you think that people in favor of gun control and who are concerned about gun violence have no personal stake in the issue, and that they cannot be mobilized by it.


So if Democrats don't succeed in their gun control efforts are you going to stop voting for them?
 
2013-03-19 05:05:03 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: I think you are completely wrong when you think that people in favor of gun control and who are concerned about gun violence have no personal stake in the issue, and that they cannot be mobilized by it.

So if Democrats don't succeed in their gun control efforts are you going to stop voting for them?


If they don't succeed? Probably not. If they don't try? My votes in the primaries will probably be significantly different.

If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?
 
2013-03-19 05:09:11 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?


I've already answered that.
 
2013-03-19 05:14:09 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So yeah, is there any doubt left that the GOP is going to experience a schism and we'll have a hard right third party running against them?


I'd LIKE there to be a schism. I've always felt that the TEA party would be happier as its own party than as a barnacle on the ass of the Republicans. The trouble is, the Republican party is too afraid of losing what few voters it has to take a chance on changing the message and attracting more voters.

Let's pretend that the hard-right Republican voter is a loud, obnoxious, gun-waving bigot with a Confederate flag plastered just above his truck nuts. The establishment Republican thinks to itself, "Well, he's a complete idiot, but at least he's voting for me." Unfortunately, by associating himself with Yosemite Sam, he's costing voters from the other side. Scraping off this one lunatic might reward him with ten votes from the center, but since it isn't guaranteed, the Republican can't take that chance. He ALREADY doesn't have enough support on a national level. All the Republican can see is "The number of votes I got minus that guy," rather than "The number of votes I got minus that guy, plus the votes I get for no longer associating with that guy."

For Republican math, a schism means "We only got 47% of the vote in the last election; now you want us to get 23.5%? How does that win elections?"

We'll know what they've decided in 2016 - if the frontrunning candidate spends the entire primary swimming in derp, then staggers back to the center with all that baggage for the general, we'll know they haven't learned a damned thing. If the frontrunner in the primary targets the center, we'll know they're done with the TEA party.
 
2013-03-19 05:15:06 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?

I've already answered that.


So let's be clear, you would vote for Sarah Palin if she ran against a Democrat who supported gun control based solely on that issue?
 
2013-03-19 05:21:31 PM

dr_blasto: Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.

no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of a mental illness than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their mythology and shared delusions are internally consistent (for the most part).  the mental illness bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their echo chamber delusions.  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so insane, they simply are not capable of changing their approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're losing.  they KNOW that their too extreme.  But they can't change their ideology any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's wrong, they KNOW it...but they can't help themselves.

At what point does all the delusional, arrogant and obstinate become stupid? The Republican Party has been advocating non-functional policies for DECADES. We know their trickle-down bullshiat doesn't work, we know they are farking horrible on personal freedom issues. We know they no longer even offer practical policy in any arena. If they don't know this, they are stupid-plain and simple. Either their supporters are stupid or the leadership is stupid or both.

If they know these things yet continue to make them core planks of their platform, they are what? Trolls? Suicidal? Is the party made up of stupid not-so-rich people and greedy-yet-smart rich people? What of the ...


I'm guessing Weav is claiming that the GOP knows trickle-down is wrong, that family planning is a money saving thing for society and the government, that a progressive tax structure is not only more fair, but will actually generate more income for everyone, including the upper 1%. But they can't because they chose the path of righteousness, so they can't show compromise or wavering. Then, when the 1%'ers came and asked for tax cuts using the ruse of trickle-down, they agreed because the short-term pay-off of cash for campaigning was worth it. Same goes with the theocracy side of the equation. The GOP accepted the fundamentalists because they provided a large number of voters. Now, they have to maintain harping about the legitimacy of rape and whether they believe in evolution. They can't change, even if they (well, some of them) know better.

The crux of the matter is that the GOP runs on a top-down totalitarian structure. They demand and require obedience. They don't have the numbers, so they only way they can win is through general ennui and them coming out in force during that moment to capture seats (see 2010 election). They create ennui through confusing the public. Soon after Obama's election, somehow or another the whole economic collapse of 2009 was burdened onto Obama as if it was "Obama's depression". The Iraq war became "Obama's Iraq War" and so on. They create confusion to make people think twice about voting. And when people have to think twice, they decide to forego the voting altogether. At that moment, they get the rallying cry to get people there. In 2010, they used the "Tea Party" tactic because it was clear at that time the "GOP" brand was totally trashed by GW Bush. They created a new astroturfed party, the Tea Party, which, in policy, is identical or more right than the GOP. That alone added a significant number of people into the cause.

But the root of all, again, is their inability to compromise. Their very raison d'etre is to be firm and solid. The mighty oak tree. Well, the negative is that if you pick the wrong position and you can't compromise yourself out of it, you're doomed. And doom is what we're seeing with the GOP.
 
2013-03-19 05:27:29 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?

I've already answered that.

So let's be clear, you would vote for Sarah Palin if she ran against a Democrat who supported gun control based solely on that issue?


If read my answers from before you would know your question is absurd.
 
2013-03-19 05:32:08 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: If the Democrats make an issue of gun violence and propose some gun control measures will you stop voting for them? Will you vote for Republicans strictly because of their complete rejection of any and all gun control measures?

I've already answered that.

So let's be clear, you would vote for Sarah Palin if she ran against a Democrat who supported gun control based solely on that issue?

If read my answers from before you would know your question is absurd.


You would just chose not to vote for a Democrat who you agreed with on every other issue than guns even if they were running against Sarah Palin. Is that a more accurate summation of your position?
 
2013-03-19 05:42:30 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: s that a more accurate summation of your position?


No.
 
2013-03-19 05:44:19 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: s that a more accurate summation of your position?

No.


How was that any different than your statement:

But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.
 
2013-03-19 05:51:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: s that a more accurate summation of your position?

No.

How was that any different than your statement:

But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.



I would do the same as you: 

Philip Francis Queeg: My votes in the primaries will probably be significantly different.

 
2013-03-19 05:53:21 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: s that a more accurate summation of your position?

No.

How was that any different than your statement:

But I'm not going to vote for anyone that supports weapon bans either.


I would do the same as you:  Philip Francis Queeg: My votes in the primaries will probably be significantly different.


That's a considerable qualification on your earlier statement.

And in the General? would you still refuse to vote for any Democrat based solely on a disagreement on gun control?
 
2013-03-19 06:00:53 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: That's a considerable qualification on your earlier statement.

And in the General? would you still refuse to vote for any Democrat based solely on a disagreement on gun control?


And yours is an impossible hypothetical.  Palin will never be the choice vs any democrat in a general.

If it was somebody like her vs a gun ban democrat.  I would hope there would be an independent like Charlie Christ and would vote that way if I didn't want to vote democrat and I wouldn't feel bad about it.
 
2013-03-19 06:03:16 PM

manimal2878: it was somebody like her vs a gun ban democrat. I would hope there would be an independent like Charlie Christ and would vote that way if I didn't want to vote democrat and I wouldn't feel bad about it.


Though I guess he is a democrat now so...  yeah, your hypothetical doesn't apply.
 
2013-03-19 06:05:30 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: That's a considerable qualification on your earlier statement.

And in the General? would you still refuse to vote for any Democrat based solely on a disagreement on gun control?

And yours is an impossible hypothetical.  Palin will never be the choice vs any democrat in a general.

If it was somebody like her vs a gun ban democrat.  I would hope there would be an independent like Charlie Christ and would vote that way if I didn't want to vote democrat and I wouldn't feel bad about it.


Charlie Christ supports an assault weapons ban. You have now vowed to never vote for him no matter how many other issues you agree with him on.
 
2013-03-19 06:58:09 PM

manimal2878: They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.


guys
guys hey guys
i'm a democrat just like you but i'm concerned about this gun issue
guys
i'm very concerned
hey guys
very very very concerned
guys hey
but i'm just like you i just have all the concerns
guys

This message was brought to you by the NRA: What, us desperately resorting to trolling FARK threads?
 
2013-03-19 07:04:37 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So yeah, is there any doubt left that the GOP is going to experience a schism and we'll have a hard right third party running against them?


To be honest, I really don't know anymore.

Here we have the GOP stuck riding the tiger of white male resentment. They know its a losing issue, but the moment they try to get off the tiger primaries them and replaces them with legitimate rape.

Then you have Greece with a not insignificant portion of the populace voting for fascists. Italy's last election saw a massive surge by a 'party' running on a Monty Brewster platform. I'm pretty sure the same thing just happened in Israel too. Hungary just voted in a constitutional amendment shoving the supreme court out of the way.

I'm starting to wonder if we're just now passing through the looking glass of global market democracy, and we're back at square one in understanding just what the fark is going to happen next.
 
2013-03-19 07:05:16 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.

guys
guys hey guys
i'm a democrat just like you but i'm concerned about this gun issue
guys
i'm very concerned
hey guys
very very very concerned
guys hey
but i'm just like you i just have all the concerns
guys

This message was brought to you by the NRA: What, us desperately resorting to trolling FARK threads?


You really nailed it. Maybe try more time reading the thread and less trying to be clever.
 
2013-03-19 07:10:59 PM

manimal2878: You really nailed it. Maybe try more time reading the thread and less trying to be clever.


I did read it. Your concern is duly noted.
 
2013-03-19 07:23:10 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: You really nailed it. Maybe try more time reading the thread and less trying to be clever.

I did read it. Your concern is duly noted.


As is the fact you are an asshole.
 
2013-03-19 07:26:17 PM

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.


"Circle jerk"?  (sigh...)  you people are so unoriginal.  Can't you come up with a better insult than that?  I mean, it's become an actual boilerplate on Reddit to whine about anything other than a Fox link being a liberal Circle Jerk, and I was really hoping that it wouldn't infest Fark.
 
2013-03-19 07:31:56 PM

Huggermugger: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.

"Circle jerk"?  (sigh...)  you people are so unoriginal.  Can't you come up with a better insult than that?  I mean, it's become an actual boilerplate on Reddit to whine about anything other than a Fox link being a liberal Circle Jerk, and I was really hoping that it wouldn't infest Fark.


Well, maybe, try not to pile on and accuse people of being concern trolls or tear them for expressing a viewpoint you disagree with and will seem less like you just want to stroke each other off.
 
2013-03-19 08:09:24 PM
 Weaver95: no, they're not

What if they're actually super geniuses and the whole lurch to the hard right is part of a multi decade strategy to get the US to where it is now...

The GOP has pulled the whole country (including the democrats) so far to the right that the 'left' is implementing GOP policies.

You yourself used to be an example of a dyed in the wool conservative on this site, but you were part of the campaign to re-elect Obama, (who IMHO fills most of the 'conservative' niches of the 80's and 90's. Hell, so did Bill Clinton!) mostly out of a fear that a Republican victory would result in a level of neuveau-conservatism that was so far beyond the pale even you balked.

What if there was a decision made in the 80's to change the whole of American society into a Reaganesque utopia, and this is the result? I mean, really, how different is Obama's America from Reagan's? Apart from lower taxes, more military spending and greater corporate control of everything of course...all as the result of the right going so batshiat crazy that everyone sidled a bit to the right where stuff looked a little less insane in comparison...

kinda like a giant overton window aimed at the entire society...
 
2013-03-19 08:33:12 PM

simplicimus: Pistol grips on rifles are basically cosmetic, not intrinsic to functionality.


I've been meaning to ask someone this; if that's the case, then why did the militaries across the globe adopt assault weapons with pistol grips? Why, if it's not an improvement, if it doesn't make the rifle more efficient, is it there? it must add complexity to the design and manufacturing process, it must use ever so slightly more resources to put one on, so why bother?

I contend that it does make the rifle easier to wield and it does make it more efficient to use and hit lots of targets with it with less training (I have no idea, I've only ever shot a regular bolt action rifle).
 
2013-03-19 09:05:01 PM

dr_blasto: At what point does all the delusional, arrogant and obstinate become stupid? The Republican Party has been advocating non-functional policies for DECADES. We know their trickle-down bullshiat doesn't work, we know they are farking horrible on personal freedom issues. We know they no longer even offer practical policy in any arena. If they don't know this, they are stupid-plain and simple. Either their supporters are stupid or the leadership is stupid or both.


Delusional, arrogant and obstinate IS stupid, as far as I'm concerned. If they know it and know they need to change and won't or can't because they're wedded to pure ideology, or to keep their fringe elements happy, or "because", then they're stupid. Or, if you prefer, delusional, arrogant and obstinate. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then stupidity is insisting everyone do it your way because you don't want to change what you're doing.
 
2013-03-19 10:19:56 PM
How about "Your social policies are reprehensible and your economic policies are delusional."
 
2013-03-19 11:24:19 PM
And this has been your manimal thread for today, folks.

Tune in next time for more completely going-off-on-a-tangent fun from guess who.
 
2013-03-19 11:42:17 PM

Kittypie070: And this has been your manimal thread for today, folks.

Tune in next time for more completely going-off-on-a-tangent fun from guess who.


Yeah right, like you could even name one other thread I have been in without googling.  I'm not that noticeable.
 
2013-03-20 04:31:25 AM
manimal2878: waaaaaaaaahhhhh, mean kitty!!
 
2013-03-20 04:53:44 AM

Weaver95: dr_blasto: Weaver95: look - the GOP isn't stupid.

Yes, they are.

no, they're not.  they are delusional, they are obstinate and they are arrogant.  But they aren't stupid.  think of the Republicans as being more the victims of a mental illness than being stupid.  they are driven by a set of goals that conflicts with the reality around them...but their mythology and shared delusions are internally consistent (for the most part).  the mental illness bit comes in when they choose to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of their echo chamber delusions.  if they were simply stupid we would be able to lie and trick them very easily.  As it stands, Obama and the Democrats aren't winning against the Republicans because they've out-thought the GOP...they're winning because the GOP's ideology is so extreme, so insane that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with it.  And because the Republican party is so insane, they simply are not capable of changing their approach.  that option simply does not exist for the Republican party.  they KNOW that they're losing.  they KNOW that their too extreme.  But they can't change their ideology any more than someone who's OCD could stop touching a door handle three times before opening it.  they know it's wrong, they KNOW it...but they can't help themselves.


Honestly, if you were running for office where I live, I'd vote for you and volunteer for your campaign.
 
2013-03-20 05:20:16 AM

Foundling: 1. Focus on rewarding work (I do not mean an A+ for participation) and encouraging the success of businesses with less than 50 employees.

2. Quit telling Americans how to live. "Freedom" does not include the right to own people.

3. (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon. They will get a light lunch at noon. They will be pushing resumes and calling potential employers till 5pm. At the end of the day they will get one day's worth of welfare. Conservatives don't  get to call anybody lazy. Fatso doesn't get to make fun of people on welfare at 11am anymore. Liberals can't say we're neglecting the poor. Employers don't get to create a worse work environment than this, because it's always there. When one of these offices gets ten unemployed people, they put their skills together to create a start-up company, so they're not dependent on employers that already exist.

If both parties hate me for these ideas, then good.


As someone who has spent significant time looking for work, I would wholeheartedly support this idea. With the caveat that the welfare is actually increased to enough for a person to live on reasonably. Not sure what it's like there, but it literally wasn't worth the hassle for me to be on welfare here, and I'm in Canada. It's more time and cost effective to find one odd job every other week. Shoveling dirt, snow removal, lawn cutting, whatever I could find. Downside was the months at a time where I just couldn't find a damned thing. $180 to live for a month? The hell?
 
2013-03-20 05:21:32 AM

LavenderWolf: Foundling: 1. Focus on rewarding work (I do not mean an A+ for participation) and encouraging the success of businesses with less than 50 employees.

2. Quit telling Americans how to live. "Freedom" does not include the right to own people.

3. (both parties) If somebody is not working, they need to show up at some government building prior to 8am. They will be training for a new job till noon. They will get a light lunch at noon. They will be pushing resumes and calling potential employers till 5pm. At the end of the day they will get one day's worth of welfare. Conservatives don't  get to call anybody lazy. Fatso doesn't get to make fun of people on welfare at 11am anymore. Liberals can't say we're neglecting the poor. Employers don't get to create a worse work environment than this, because it's always there. When one of these offices gets ten unemployed people, they put their skills together to create a start-up company, so they're not dependent on employers that already exist.

If both parties hate me for these ideas, then good.

As someone who has spent significant time looking for work, I would wholeheartedly support this idea. With the caveat that the welfare is actually increased to enough for a person to live on reasonably. Not sure what it's like there, but it literally wasn't worth the hassle for me to be on welfare here, and I'm in Canada. It's more time and cost effective to find one odd job every other week. Shoveling dirt, snow removal, lawn cutting, whatever I could find. Downside was the months at a time where I just couldn't find a damned thing. $180 to live for a month? The hell?


Postscript: I have two jobs now, and have been employed consistently for over a year. Even though it's killing me and I've lost a dangerous amount of weight. Don't want to be unemployed again.
 
2013-03-20 02:38:46 PM

Weaver95: no, they're not.


Yes they are. The fact that they know they've painted themselves in a corner doesn't change the fact that they were stupid enough to paint themselves into a corner in the first place.
 
2013-03-21 12:06:07 AM
So first you surround yourself with people who are paid to tell you what you want to hear, and you lose the election.

Then you pay some other people to tell you the truth about what went wrong, and you tell everyone they are full of crap and ignore what they say.

BRILLIANT!
 
Displayed 47 of 247 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report